That was not the point of the comment about whether Federer would do better in a different era considering he started before homogenisation.

The point is very clear and simple, that apart from movement there is so little difference between the surface speeds therefore it much easier for them to be breaking the records they did which is exactly what Federer was saying.

Yeah it's a joke era. They may as well play everything on exactly the same surface that suits pushing grinders and hand them all career slams. Tennis has been dead post 90's.

Agassi was much more a player than Djokovic and Murray.Now what you can see one dimensional playing style from everyone the difference is that some of them can run faster and do not get tired and others are not so fast and get tired. The old Fed had the most aces at WTF and most hot shots.

anyway , action jackson I said that federer won in rg because the weather conditions made more faster rg that year , and federer in peak mode without nadal would be capable to win roland garros.

I don`t consider that roger was beneficited by homogenization on clay , he played several final facing very slow courts in roland garros beetwen 2005-2007

You are as bad as the people you are complaining against. The fact the surfaces and games have homogenised benefited Federer as well, it's your too biased to see this. Nadal is the only player on clay in this generation who plays like an old school clay court player albeit adapted to modern times with a lot of ability on the surface. He toys with Fed on clay by breaking down the backhand, this is not a new tactic and so damn simple.

Which leads to the next point Fed struggled with the old school guys when they were past their past on the surface or do you need plenty of examples. As the surfaces have become closer that style of game on clay apart from Nadal and to a very poor version Andreev has become obsolete, unlike when Fed started guys like that were still playing. Therefore he gained the benefit on clay because of this.

You can't bitch about Nadal getting benefits from a slower and high bouncing grass or hardcourts getting slower or Djokovic on grass without looking Fed.

__________________“ On Nadal bumping him on the changeover, Rosol said: "It's ok, he wanted to take my concentration; I knew he would try something".

Wilander on Dimitrov - "He has mind set on imitating Federer and yes it looks good. But he has no idea what to do on the court".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filo V.

I definitely would have preferred Gaba winning as he needs the points much more, but Jan would have beaten him anyway. I expect Hajek to destroy Machado, like 6-1 6-2.

You know that Fed struggled against Nadal on clay because Nadal was still winning slams regularly when he was beating Fed. However, when Fed loses against someone who at the time of the loss is a non-factor (nevermind a consistent genuine slam contender) the story is completely different. It would then not make any sense to draw any conclusions from such losses other than it was one of those losses that just happen from time to time; like Sampras losing to Yzaga/Kucera (or Federer).

You are as bad as the people you are complaining against. The fact the surfaces and games have homogenised benefited Federer as well, it's your too biased to see this. Nadal is the only player on clay in this generation who plays like an old school clay court player albeit adapted to modern times with a lot of ability on the surface. He toys with Fed on clay by breaking down the backhand, this is not a new tactic and so damn simple.

Which leads to the next point Fed struggled with the old school guys when they were past their past on the surface or do you need plenty of examples. As the surfaces have become closer that style of game on clay apart from Nadal and to a very poor version Andreev has become obsolete, unlike when Fed started guys like that were still playing. Therefore he gained the benefit on clay because of this.

You can't bitch about Nadal getting benefits from a slower and high bouncing grass or hardcourts getting slower or Djokovic on grass without looking Fed.

Maybe you are rigth and it`s a good post.

but I think that nadal it`s a different kind of beast over clay like borg , but in not all the eras exist a nadal or borg , many players playing high against fed`s backhand but nobody could did the same damage than nadal with his forehand , I mean nadal has the perfect forehand for a clay court player.

I see all the players in the 90s , specially muster and kuerten and of course than they would be much more capable to defeat federer many times over clay , homever I think that federer maybe would can win more matches againts them than against nadal.

but if players like agassi could won roland garros and sampras that had a very bad game and physicall condition played semis on clay (winning rome) , why federer can`t do it too?????

You are right maybe like I said before , but if the court not be so similars , federer maybe never won in RG but he still has many many grand slams/titles in hardcourts , indoors and grass , but other players has in his favour now more surfaces more slows like hard , indoor and grass.

maybe nadal only would win in roland garros and nothing more if the courts were like before , maybe australia too but in rebound ace nadal never played very good.

other players are much more beneficit than federer with the homogenization , not???

federer would be like sampras but nobody of this player would be like agassi , maybe djokovic but I don`t know